header-logo header-logo

14 March 2013
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Motormouth cleared

Car manufacturer runs out of battery in Court of Appeal

Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson did not libel the makers of an electric car, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v BBC [2013] EWCA Civ 152, Lord Justice Moore-Bick dismissed Tesla’s appeal over an unfavourable review of its Roadster, an electric sports car based on the Lotus Elise.

The legal action centred on Clarkson’s comment during an episode of Top Gear broadcast in 2008 that Tesla said the car “would do 200 miles” when in fact it ran out of battery after just 55 miles on the Top Gear test track. This was followed by footage of the electric Roadster being pushed into the hangar.

Tesla argued Clarkson’s comments were defamatory because they implied it “intentionally or recklessly grossly misled potential purchasers” by claiming the car had a longer range than it did. Tesla said the BBC film contained other inaccuracies, including saying another Roadster had broken brakes, and claimed malicious falsehood on the BBC’s part in order to cause the company pecuniary damage.

However, Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed the claim, noting that no reasonable person would compare the car’s performance on the Top Gear test track, which involved heavy cornering and acceleration, with that on public roads; therefore they would not infer Tesla had set out to mislead. The malicious falsehood claim did not go to appeal due to causation issues.

Dismissing Tesla’s appeal, Moore-Bick LJ said: “The fact is that the difference between the two was obviously so great that a reasonable viewer would realise that the comparison was meaningless. In my view, therefore, the judge was right to hold that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the meaning which Tesla sought to attribute to them.”

Referring to the case of Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75, Moore-Bick LJ  said there were difficulties identifying any pecuniary loss likely to have been caused by the false statements, although he would “hesitate” to describe the proceedings as an abuse of process.

Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll